American Third Position Political Party
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
Next: Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
From: tony cooper on 23 Jan 2010 10:19 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:02:18 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >In message <8rjkl51mop0f3ptmj1jffnku49ivl26ji8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:52:57 -0500, "Peter" >><peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>news:4m6kl5tr32uv8gnscvpgipiuadojc5g061(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> >>>> Where do you get your 80% figure? Everyone in the US is covered by >>>> some sort of health care program. It may be a private insurance >>>> program, Medicare, Medicaid, or some other government program. There >>>> is a wide difference between being covered by a private insurance >>>> program and relying on free government care, but the point is that >>>> 100% of the people are covered. Few Americans will argue that we our >>>> health care system is adequate, but anyone with any knowledge of the >>>> system will refute your 80% claim. >>> >>> >>> >>>Gotta disagree. Yes a lot of people in certain categories are covered, but I >>>know too many who have been forced into bankruptcy and/or lost their life >>>savings because of medical costs. >> >>That's a whole different issue. Even a certain number of the 80% of >>Americans who do have private insurance coverage can face this. Most >>private insurance policies have some sort of limitation on the >>coverage. > > >So health care is RATIONED even for the 80% who do have it.... and the >US health care cost a lot more then the UK system that covered 1005 of >the population? > I wouldn't say the US system costs a lot more. UK citizens are paying through taxation rather than directly. > >US.. more expensive covers only a proportion of the population and may >bankrupt anyone who is ill if they run out of insurance. > >UK ... health care for 100% of the population. Will not bankrupt you in >any situation. > >Which is better? Ah, so what you want is to be able to say that the UK system is the "best". Why didn't you say so in the first place instead of misrepresenting the situation in the US? I would say that providing full health care to 100% of the citizens is the better program. The "best" is providing full health care to 100% of the citizens, with the participants being able to freely choose their own doctors and hospitals, and being able to have necessary procedures done in a timely manner. Is that what you have? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: rendition on 23 Jan 2010 11:06 Chris H wrote: > In message <8rjkl51mop0f3ptmj1jffnku49ivl26ji8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:52:57 -0500, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:4m6kl5tr32uv8gnscvpgipiuadojc5g061(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> Where do you get your 80% figure? Everyone in the US is covered by >>>> some sort of health care program. It may be a private insurance >>>> program, Medicare, Medicaid, or some other government program. There >>>> is a wide difference between being covered by a private insurance >>>> program and relying on free government care, but the point is that >>>> 100% of the people are covered. Few Americans will argue that we our >>>> health care system is adequate, but anyone with any knowledge of the >>>> system will refute your 80% claim. >>> >>> >>> Gotta disagree. Yes a lot of people in certain categories are covered, but I >>> know too many who have been forced into bankruptcy and/or lost their life >>> savings because of medical costs. >> That's a whole different issue. Even a certain number of the 80% of >> Americans who do have private insurance coverage can face this. Most >> private insurance policies have some sort of limitation on the >> coverage. > > > So health care is RATIONED even for the 80% who do have it.... and the > US health care cost a lot more then the UK system that covered 1005 of > the population? > > > US.. more expensive covers only a proportion of the population and may > bankrupt anyone who is ill if they run out of insurance. > > UK ... health care for 100% of the population. Will not bankrupt you in > any situation. > > Which is better? > > What is, "I'm on a waiting list for an operation and may die first" for $100, Alex?
From: rendition on 23 Jan 2010 11:09 tony cooper wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:02:18 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> > wrote: > >> In message <8rjkl51mop0f3ptmj1jffnku49ivl26ji8(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> writes >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:52:57 -0500, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4m6kl5tr32uv8gnscvpgipiuadojc5g061(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> Where do you get your 80% figure? Everyone in the US is covered by >>>>> some sort of health care program. It may be a private insurance >>>>> program, Medicare, Medicaid, or some other government program. There >>>>> is a wide difference between being covered by a private insurance >>>>> program and relying on free government care, but the point is that >>>>> 100% of the people are covered. Few Americans will argue that we our >>>>> health care system is adequate, but anyone with any knowledge of the >>>>> system will refute your 80% claim. >>>> >>>> >>>> Gotta disagree. Yes a lot of people in certain categories are covered, but I >>>> know too many who have been forced into bankruptcy and/or lost their life >>>> savings because of medical costs. >>> That's a whole different issue. Even a certain number of the 80% of >>> Americans who do have private insurance coverage can face this. Most >>> private insurance policies have some sort of limitation on the >>> coverage. >> >> So health care is RATIONED even for the 80% who do have it.... and the >> US health care cost a lot more then the UK system that covered 1005 of >> the population? >> > I wouldn't say the US system costs a lot more. UK citizens are paying > through taxation rather than directly. >> US.. more expensive covers only a proportion of the population and may >> bankrupt anyone who is ill if they run out of insurance. >> >> UK ... health care for 100% of the population. Will not bankrupt you in >> any situation. >> >> Which is better? > > Ah, so what you want is to be able to say that the UK system is the > "best". Why didn't you say so in the first place instead of > misrepresenting the situation in the US? > > I would say that providing full health care to 100% of the citizens is > the better program. Not when the quality of the care provided is diminished for all. > The "best" is providing full health care to 100% > of the citizens, with the participants being able to freely choose > their own doctors and hospitals, and being able to have necessary > procedures done in a timely manner. Yes. > Is that what you have? Doubtful.
From: Chris H on 23 Jan 2010 12:31 In message <4b5b0a58$0$30934$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes >"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:sdzdhdCBKvWLFAjF@p >haedsys.demon.co.uk... > >> As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal >> experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a >> myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits >> would recognise. >> > >Basically true, It is true. I am British, living in the UK and had cause to use the NHS this morning. >but many myths are based upon some fact. Health care is rationed, to >some extent. I know of no system that gives unlimited treatment to all >comers. The UK tries to as do many other systems. It does fall over sometimes in practice. > Common sense tells us that is fiscally impossible. Here in the US, >under our current system rationing is partially based upon ability to >pay. Quite so. >No one really believes that the medical treatment given to our poverty >level patients is the same as for those who can afford to pay. In the UK there is no difference. >Also, an 80 year old person cannot get a kidney or transplant. Heart >transplant candidates are carefully screened. All of this is a form of >rationing. In the UK they would if they were fit enough for the operation and it would improve their life. That said AFAIK all patients get screened for operations as no one wants to do pointless operations. However these decisions are taken on medical grounds. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Brent on 23 Jan 2010 12:53
On 2010-01-23, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > In message <hjd330$c5f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Brent <tetraethyll > eadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> writes >>On 2010-01-22, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> >>> According to an in depth discussion in another group The UK actually >>> spends less per person on health care (including dental) in the UK than >>> the USA spends per person. Also it covers EVERY person in the UK, not >>> just 80% as per the USA. >> >>The UK is a government run rationed model. > > As I discovered this morning (and from the last 50 years of personal > experience) it is not rationed. The "rationed" and "death panels" is a > myth concocted by the US anti-Obama people. It is not something Brits > would recognise. Not rationed as in 'ration cards' for each person, rationed in the way that everything is a cost. That is, there is only so much to go around and the government decides how it's going to be used. Governments work with a fixed pie system, it's not like a market system where those providing goods and services look to provide more to meet demand. Government's first response is controling consumption not increasing supply. The UK nanny state, where they are aiming to manage every detail of people's lives is being justified because of the -cost savings- for their national health care system. That's the rationing. There's only so much for 'health care' and they will run people's lives to best distribute it. > Most people would say the US model is a doubly rationed model. Only 80% > of the population gets health-care and that 80% they are rationed again > to what they can pay for. *sigh* if you don't understand or are going to twist the meaning of words discussion is pointless. >>The US is a cartel crony >>captialist (aka fascist) model. Neither is good. > Though one costs less and covers 100% of the population and the other > costs more and covers only 80%.... Both have their faults. How many people are covered is simply irrelevant from a freedom pov. If we had a market system not only would services be considerably less costly but people could make their own decisions if insurance was worth it for them. Low cost market health care would change the situation so significantly that many people might not bother with insurance as they could afford to insure themselves through savings. >>The US version uses >>government to limit competition through law, regulation, and social >>programs. This keeps costs and profits high for the favored players. It >>will eventually become a government run rationed model because >>government will demand more and more control in exchange for the favors >>it is granting to the players. In the end, only the government will be >>left standing. The government will then ration care because it isn't >>profit seeking, it's mentality is limiting costs instead. There will be >>no spending money to make money. > Agreed. > However the UK model is also having problems. Yeah, that's what I wrote. |